Klaudandus wrote:Considering the opulence he lives in (surprised he doesnt have a mini giraffe)... it's quite dissonant that he gets a break, but the poorest of the catholics don't get that break.

Well then you are probably happy to hear that the Vatican will face financial troubles probably because of the problems at the Vatican Bank.

AFAIK he steps down because he is unable to handle the problems in the church regarding the recent scandals and issues troubling the curia. Seems he want to leave instead of doing the same as John Paul II who was unable to rule the church because of his age and health issues but kept the position till his death. IIRC many people then said that he should have stepped down. So Benedict realized he isn´t the right man for the job or simply too old already and decided to resign. Perhaps he shouldn´t have taken the job (heard he wasn´t really happy about it) but took it out of a sense of duty or thought he could handle it. Wouldn´t be the first guy who bit up more than he could chew.

I'm pretty sure you cannot turn down the papacy if you are eligable. The way it is set up is that it, in theory, is "the hand of God" that chooses the pope through the cardinals. Also, any male of catholic faith is eligable last I checked, though some news stations keep spouting that only a cardinal is eligable (yes, you have to be ordained, but that can be done before the prsentation)

Yeah, most media outlets have their token, other view, folks that they put out there. There's really no difference between the various main stream media outlets at all. Here's an NYT example, though technically the author isn't conservative, his view on running a healthcare system is, so good enough for the NYT.

http://www.bibleprobe.com/last10popes.htmMaybe someone else has some wisdom about this, came across this link from somewhere.Basically this pope was prophesied to step down, and the next one will be the final pope.

I don't see any prophecies in that link about the pope stepping down. Also I see several glaring errors of translation or stuff made to fit with one translation rather than the other."De labore solis" is translated as "of the solar eclipse" to make it fit with JP2 - however, it could just as easly be "The solitary work(er)", which isn't mentioned just once.

That's the 2nd teen who is linked to gun violence after meeting Obama. Cue WND, NRO, Freepers and other Right Wing sites on saying they are being killed by Obama's secret police forces in order to advance his gun control agenda.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/1 ... _ref=falseAlabama state Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin (R) is pushing legislation that would impose restrictions on abortion clinics -- a move that she argues is necessary because the procedure is a major surgery that removes the largest "organ" in a woman's body.

Actually, I'm completely fine with cutting defense spending, despite it being the method through which I am currently employed. The defense industrial base (Particularly through Air Force systems but the Army and Navy/Marines aren't clean either) waste an ungodly amount of money through R&D and procurement. We get some of it back through selling the export package kit to our partners, but it still costs stupid amounts of money, particularly when things like when Lockheed can't get the engines on the F-35 working as designed or when the oxygen systems make our pilots sick.

Part of the issue with the armed forces currently is that the original concept was to keep the Regular Army around to train up the draftees when Congress made a declaration of war. We decided to circumvent the whole system with the modern volunteer Army, which has been a major problem of burnout for Soldiers in conflict the last 12 years.

I see tremendous project my little corner of Afghanistan, but I don't know how sustainable it will be after we're gone. Afghanistan will certainly remain a 3rd world nation after I go home, and Karzai is far too fond of blaming us for everything for my taste, especially when international aid funds somewhere around 80% of his budget, and he's got a house in Virginia to flee to when the shit goes south.

I'm not opposed to cuts, though I am opposed to across the board cuts. They really do need to be targeted and looked at. For example, I think we really need to stay in Cybersecurity, and we can probably afford to have a smaller standing military. But then, after 8 years in the modern volunteer Army, I rather feel we should go back to a small standing Army and a draft. The current system really abuses the shit out of the folks who do sign up through multiple tours and then being kicked to the curb now that the wars are over.

Torquemada wrote:Actually, I'm completely fine with cutting defense spending, despite it being the method through which I am currently employed. The defense industrial base (Particularly through Air Force systems but the Army and Navy/Marines aren't clean either) waste an ungodly amount of money through R&D and procurement. We get some of it back through selling the export package kit to our partners, but it still costs stupid amounts of money, particularly when things like when Lockheed can't get the engines on the F-35 working as designed or when the oxygen systems make our pilots sick.

Part of the issue with the armed forces currently is that the original concept was to keep the Regular Army around to train up the draftees when Congress made a declaration of war. We decided to circumvent the whole system with the modern volunteer Army, which has been a major problem of burnout for Soldiers in conflict the last 12 years.

I see tremendous project my little corner of Afghanistan, but I don't know how sustainable it will be after we're gone. Afghanistan will certainly remain a 3rd world nation after I go home, and Karzai is far too fond of blaming us for everything for my taste, especially when international aid funds somewhere around 80% of his budget, and he's got a house in Virginia to flee to when the shit goes south.

I'm not opposed to cuts, though I am opposed to across the board cuts. They really do need to be targeted and looked at. For example, I think we really need to stay in Cybersecurity, and we can probably afford to have a smaller standing military. But then, after 8 years in the modern volunteer Army, I rather feel we should go back to a small standing Army and a draft. The current system really abuses the shit out of the folks who do sign up through multiple tours and then being kicked to the curb now that the wars are over.

Yeah, I'd rather them cut stuff to R&D than cut VA stuff. Problem is all the congressmen that want to help their buddies in Lockheed, Boeing, et al.

Its the same as Texas and the local oil/gas companies. Help your buddies at the cost and instead cut education instead to balance the budget.

Make all campaigns have a max amount to spend on it, have it be provided by the state, and have set amounts of television and radio time, so each candidate has exactly the same amount as his or her opponent, so its the politics that matter, not the money. (Would also go a long way towards removing negative adds - do you REALLY want to spend x% of your alloted time smearing your opponent, when (s)he can just keep talking politics leaving you less time to get your message out?)

Yeah, I know, it will neve rhappen (it wouldn't even in our nice socialistic scandinavian "paradises")

Well could just ban political adds from tv/radio apart from those the candidates can get to (It works, we have 0 political adds in Denmark, they are all banned, but I think it would be okay to open up for candidate adds (US system) or party adds (european systems) as long as each candidate/party was given equal amount of access/time)

Make all campaigns have a max amount to spend on it, have it be provided by the state, and have set amounts of television and radio time, so each candidate has exactly the same amount as his or her opponent, so its the politics that matter, not the money. (Would also go a long way towards removing negative adds - do you REALLY want to spend x% of your alloted time smearing your opponent, when (s)he can just keep talking politics leaving you less time to get your message out?)

Yeah, I know, it will neve rhappen (it wouldn't even in our nice socialistic scandinavian "paradises")

"Hi, I'm Billy Joe Bob from the Billy Joe Bob party. I collected me some 25,000 signatures while on unemployment so I could start my own political party. Now give me my 10 million for campaign advertising so I can spend it at Billy Joe Bob's Video Productions Inc. to make my campaign commercial."

"Hi, I'm Willard Thornton III. I invested $1 million of my own money to hire people to collect signatures so I could establish my own political party. Please give me my $10 million for campaign expenses. I happen to know an artist who will design my campaign artwork for a mere $10 million. His name is Willard Thornton IV."

Nooska wrote:Well could just ban political adds from tv/radio apart from those the candidates can get to (It works, we have 0 political adds in Denmark, they are all banned, but I think it would be okay to open up for candidate adds (US system) or party adds (european systems) as long as each candidate/party was given equal amount of access/time)

I have no knowledge of Fox News to say either way (though the comments lead me to say "yes"), though I wouldn't ban political commentary, just political adds (it works around here, but our 2 real stations (apart from the ones that just broadcat series and movies) are both partially and exclusively (respectively) publicly funded, so they go out of their way to avoid bias.

And yes, if you get the needed signature, you should have equal airtime - why should Willard Thornton III be a bigger presence than Billy Joe Bob? both have the same public support behind running for office, that is, after all, the point of requiring signatures, is it not?Now, for actual money, I think it needs to be divvied up into airtime (TV and radio) which is given by the networks equally, and paid for directly by the state, and then an amount for other campaign paraphanelia - around here that would be posters etc.

If you have a candidate who cooks well and wants to personally entice people by serving food, go for it, thats still limited by the candidate's time and being only 1 place at a time, as well as actually being a person of that inkling (I have a hard time seeing someone like Francis Underwood doing something like that personally - just to grab a fictional politician).

See, it's not about intelligence, it's about trying. Politicians can't get past the idea that the only possible way to fail in America is if you sit back and do nothing. The idea that someone can put out the effort, yet not gain ground is inconceivable to them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/2 ... lp00000003Walker, a first-term Republican facing re-election next year, said he would offset the tax cuts and spending increases contained in his 2013-2015 budget by redirecting some funds away from public schools and healthcare, freezing aid to local governments and selling off state assets such as power plants.

Nooska wrote:I have no knowledge of Fox News to say either way (though the comments lead me to say "yes"), though I wouldn't ban political commentary, just political adds (it works around here, but our 2 real stations (apart from the ones that just broadcat series and movies) are both partially and exclusively (respectively) publicly funded, so they go out of their way to avoid bias.

And yes, if you get the needed signature, you should have equal airtime - why should Willard Thornton III be a bigger presence than Billy Joe Bob? both have the same public support behind running for office, that is, after all, the point of requiring signatures, is it not?Now, for actual money, I think it needs to be divvied up into airtime (TV and radio) which is given by the networks equally, and paid for directly by the state, and then an amount for other campaign paraphanelia - around here that would be posters etc.

If you have a candidate who cooks well and wants to personally entice people by serving food, go for it, thats still limited by the candidate's time and being only 1 place at a time, as well as actually being a person of that inkling (I have a hard time seeing someone like Francis Underwood doing something like that personally - just to grab a fictional politician).

Fox is a major TV network - the one that originally broadcast "The Simpsons" and "Firefly" - that tends to openly favour one political party over the other. It is not uncommon to see "spelling mistakes" like "Barack Osama" among other less-subtle jibes. Their editorial content pretty much mirrors Republican doctrine. You could, without much stretch of the truth, call their news programs commercials for the Republican party.

The point I was making about Billy Joe Bob and Mr. Thornton III is that abuse of public campaign funding could be rampant. Theoretically you can't limit it to only two political parties, but only those two have a chance in hell of reaching the White House. But other "parties" could demand equal funding to compete. Some can be made up just to cash in on the advertising funds, Like Billy and T3. Billy sucks $10 million from the public kitty and pays it to his own video company, while Mr T3 spends his own money to get a 1000% return that he launders through his son.

See, it's not about intelligence, it's about trying. Politicians can't get past the idea that the only possible way to fail in America is if you sit back and do nothing. The idea that someone can put out the effort, yet not gain ground is inconceivable to them.

fuzzygeek wrote:Do you not think other media outlets have their own biases that openly favour one political party over the other?

Nothing like Fox does (well, except maybe MSNBC). Media do have their bias, but even though journalists may be left-leaning owners are even more often right-leaning. And only a minority of media starts with party loyalties and then use that to set their policies, mostly media that is outright owned by the party in question. The more normal state of affairs is for the newspaper or TV channel to have a set of institutional ethics and then support the parties who line up with that.

Fox isn't really anything new, but they are undeniably an arm of the Republican party.